Loading...
09-29-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 15-2020 David Hartmann 1. DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Area Variance No. 65-2021 Paul & Darlene Richards 2. Tax Map No. 302.11-1-76 Area Variance No. 66-2021 MH Imperial Homes/Greg Hewlett 5. Tax Map No. 279.17-1-63 Sign Variance No. 5-2021 Saxton Signs (Darren Katz) for McDonald’s 8. Tax Map No. 303.20-1-3.2 Area Variance No. 57-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Main House) 12. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Area Variance No. 58-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Guest House) 22. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL CATHERINE HAMLIN RONALD KUHL BRENT MC DEVITT JACKSON LA SARSO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL MC CABE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll call to order the September 29, 2021 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. First of all we have some old business, a motion to deny without prejudice. John, do you want to take that, please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Hartmann. Applicant proposes to remove 1,513.2 sq. ft. building to construct a 1,771.5 sq. ft. (footprint) home with a floor area of 3,474.5 sq. ft. Project includes sitework for stormwater, landscaping, and septic. Site plan for new floor area and project within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for setback, height, and floor area. On July 22, 2020 the Zoning Board of Appeals tabled the application to the first ZBA meeting in September 2020. No information was submitted by the August 15, 2020 deadline, nor has communication been received by the applicant. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AREA VARIANCE 15-2020 DAVID HARTMANN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 29 day of September, 2021, by the following vote: MRS. HAMLIN-Can I abstain? MRS. MOORE-Let me give you a quick explanation. I apologize. MR. MC DEVITT-Could you do that, Laura? I’m a little confused. I need to kind of understand this. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant has been in a review process for over a year and a half and hasn’t been able to submit information to this Board or to the Planning Board in reference to updates and where he’s at, and I haven’t been able to, I’ve discussed it with him and he knows what he needs to do. He would like to be tabled to the following year, but this is, it’s a matter of I don’t have the information and he’s not able to get it in a timely manner. MR. MC DEVITT-So we are denying without prejudice then? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. KUHL-Didn’t we approve? We approved something for this person. MRS. MOORE-It’s expired. MR. KUHL-It’s expired. You just can’t move that forward? MRS. MOORE-So what happened is the applicant’s original project expired. He applied for a new project. MR. KUHL-Yes, he did. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) MRS. MOORE-And he still hasn’t provided any information. MR. KUHL-I see. Okay. I thought the old one just moved forward as he came and said I’m still going to do it. No? Okay. MRS. MOORE-No. MRS. DWYRE-Would you like me to call the vote again? MRS. HAMLIN-I will vote to approve at this time. MRS. DWYRE-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Kuhl ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. First up on the agenda tonight under New Business is Paul & Darlene Richards. Their agent is Kevin Maynard. The project location is 18 Fort Amherst Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PAUL & DARLENE RICHARDS AGENT(S) KEVIN MAYNARD OWNER(S) PAUL & DARLENE RICHARDS ZONING MDR LOCATION 18 FORT AMHERST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 225 SQ. FT. SUNROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,115 SQ. FT. WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE OF 480 SQ. FT. AND A PORCH OF 209 SQ. FT. AN EXISTING PATIO OF 300 SQ. FT. IS TO BE REMOVED FOR THE SUNROOM ADDITION. NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE ARE PROPOSED. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF RC 436-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2021 & GLENS FALLS LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.11-1-76. SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080. KEVIN MAYNARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; PAUL RICHARDS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-2021, Paul & Darlene Richards, Meeting Date: September 29, 2021 “Project Location: 18 Fort Amherst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 225 sq. ft. sunroom addition to an existing home. The existing home is 2,115 sq. ft. with an attached garage of 480 sq. ft. and a porch of 209 sq. ft. An existing patio of 300 sq. ft. is to be removed for the sunroom addition. No other changes to the site are proposed. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a sunroom addition in the Moderate Density Residential zone, MDR. The parcel is 0.34 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-4-080 porch The sunroom addition is to be located 7.2 ft. from the closest edge to the east property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home on the parcel and the configuration of the interior of the home to access the addition. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 17.8 ft. from the side yard setback. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes no changes to the existing conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a sunroom addition to an existing home. The plans show the location of the addition and the elevations. The project involves removal of an existing patio area to install the patio. There are no other site changes proposed.” MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Anything else you’d like to add? It seems pretty straightforward. MR. MAYNARD-It does seem straightforward. I’m Kevin Maynard, by the way with Paul Richards. I believe you talked to the neighbors. MR. RICHARDS-I did, and they were okay with it. We’re going flush with the end of the house. There’s an existing patio there that’s stone, stone walls, and it’s a pretty modest size sunroom, but we need that space. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions at this time? MR. HENKEL-You call it a sunroom, but there isn’t going to be much sun back there, is there? It’s kind of blocked by trees. MR. RICHARDS-We can’t put it in the front yard. The cats will just be there most of the time. MR. MC DEVITT-Is the existing patio of 300 feet that is to be removed from the sunroom addition? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. MR. MC DEVITT-Just help me with that. I’m just trying to follow it a little bit better. We’re just getting rid of. MR. RICHARDS-It’s a stone retaining wall that’s masonry with a footer and it circles back to the house, concrete and slate patio. It replaces it, on top of it. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-So, quick question. You have another, what appears to be a sunroom or a breezeway or something that has a flagstone floor with open to the door. MR. RICHARDS-In the front of the house? MRS. HAMLIN-Is that, yes, it does seem to face the road. MR. RICHARDS-There’s one in the front of the house that’s a part of the footprint of the house. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay, and that’s going to remain as well. MR. RICHARDS-Yes. There’s also one in the back and this will just enlarge it. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. I’m fine. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? All right. At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Any correspondence, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you’d like to add in closing? I think the Board has a pretty good indication of what you’re looking for. At this time, then, I’ll poll the Board and I’ll start with Roy. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) MRS. DWYRE-Did you want to close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m satisfied that he’s passed the test and I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have no issue with this. I think it’s a good project. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it’s a very minimal request. They’re asking for just one setback relief and it’s a good project. Go for it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-It’s a minimal request. I’m in favor, and the cats obviously need a good spot. We have to support our cats in this community. MR. UNDERWOOD-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I would vote to approve this variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I’m on board with this. I’m in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-It looks like you’re on your way to your new project. So I’ll also vote for it. Does somebody want to make a motion. MR. MC DEVITT-Jim, I’ll take that. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul & Darlene Richards. Applicant proposes to construct a 225 sq. ft. sunroom addition to an existing home. The existing home is 2,115 sq. ft. with an attached garage of 480 sq. ft. and a porch of 209 sq. ft. An existing patio of 300 sq. ft. is to be removed for the sunroom addition. No other changes to the site are proposed. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a sunroom addition in the Moderate Density Residential zone, MDR. The parcel is 0.34 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-4-080 porch The sunroom addition is to be located 7.2 ft. from the closest edge to the east property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 29, 2021. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. As we’ve discussed here minor impacts, if any, to the neighborhood are anticipated. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are certainly limited due to constraints, lot size, etc. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, based on what we have discussed here. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) 5. The alleged difficulty, while we certainly could say is self-created, we certainly see that it is minimal in context. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2021 PAUL & DARLENE RICHARDS, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 29th Day of September 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. MC DEVITT-Good luck. MR. RICHARDS-Thank you very much and thank you for your service. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Next up on the agenda is MH Imperial Homes, Greg Hewlett at 173 Sunnyside Road. The applicant is requesting approval for replacement of a 1,456 square foot modular home in a Rural Residential 3 Acre zone. AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MH IMPERIAL HOMES/GREG HEWLETT AGENT(S) GREG HEWLETT OWNER(S) MH IMPERIAL HOMES ZONING RR- 3A LOCATION 173 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE PLACEMENT OF A 1,456 SQ. FT. MODULAR HOME IN A RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3-ACRE ZONE. EXISTING SHED, DRIVEWAY, SIDE ENTRY, AND FRONT ENTRY TO REMAIN THE SAME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 27-2020; RC 730-2020. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 2021 LOT SIZE 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.11-1-76 SECTION 179-3-040 GREG HEWLETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-2021, MH Imperial Homes/Greg Hewlett, Meeting Date: September 29, 2021 “Project Location: 173 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests approval of the placement of a 1,456 sq. ft. modular home in a Rural Residential 3-Acre Zone. Existing shed, driveway, side entry, and front entry to remain the same. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of a home that had recently been installed in the Rural Residential zone, RR3A. The parcel is 19,702 sq. ft. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The home has been placed with front setback at 81.0 ft. the rear setback at 88.5 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required; the side setback to the west is 26.3 ft. and to the east is 21.9 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the size of the lot where the parcel is less than 3 acres and a variance would be required to place the home anywhere on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for front setback of 19 ft., rear setback of 12 ft., side west is 48.7 ft., and side east is 53.1 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The project includes installation of a septic system and maintaining the existing well. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests approval of a home that was placed on a parcel of land with specific setbacks and the home was not placed in the required location. The site remains the same with the house location setback a bit further where relief is required for all four sides. The plans show the current location of the home.” MR. HEWLETT-Greg Hewlett. If this looks familiar, it’s because we did this already and it was approved and granted and we built the house and we have the same 81 foot setback on the front that was originally in the original application, if you look at the as built relative to the original application, but at the time apparently nobody did the math and realized that there was also relief required from the back line. So we applied for it with being 81 feet back from the road with a 28 foot deep house on a 197 foot lot, and apparently there wasn’t a written document that stated that the rear setback was also permitted. It was only written that the front one was. So we don’t have one written for the back. And then the sides, in the application map it shows 24 feet from both sides, and it showed a deck on the side with a stairway. We were told that those setback lines should have been drawn from the deck and not from the structure. So it was actually 21 feet on one side and 24 feet on the other. So we have 21 and 24 as we originally applied for with the 81 foot setback in the front as we originally applied for and was granted, and the only difference is there was never 100 feet in the back in the original application, but I guess the variance wasn’t issued for that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s understandable, you know, these pre-existing, non-conforming lots, you know, were done long before the three acre zoning came into effect. So that probably explains a lot of why the setbacks were so great. MR. HENKEL-Actually I think we created it, didn’t we? Because we split up the lots, didn’t we? MR. HEWLETT-Yes, you granted this variance will really no reservations whatsoever and we built it we felt exactly as the variance said, where the as built is exactly 81 feet from the front line, but apparently that rear relief was not written in that variance, but obviously 81 plus 28 from 197 you never had 100 feet there to begin with. So I was told that we had to come back before the Board to be granted that one. MR. HENKEL-So is the west side, did you say 24? We’ve got 26.3 here. MRS. MOORE-26.3 is the west, and the east is 21.9 per the survey. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Gotcha. MR. HEWLETT-The surveyor I believe was supposed to mark it from the deck and he marked it from the corner of the building. MR. HENKEL-I thought you had said 24 feet. Okay. So it’s 26.3 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from the Board members? MRS. HAMLIN-So technically you’re actually closer to compliance now with that new measurement. MR. HEWLETT-On one side yes, and not on the other. There was some discussion about the parcel to the west actually has a couple of structures right on the edge of the property line, and so pushing it over the other way made it less intrusive. The lot to the east I actually own. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no more questions from the Board, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. At this time then I’ll close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll start down with you, Jackson. MR. LA SARSO-I think right now it makes sense. It doesn’t seem like they’re asking for a lot. At this point I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-The way I look at it is Mr. Hewlett is getting things right here. This is more formality than anything. As I was for it several months back, I am more for it this evening. So we’re getting things right. That’s all we’re doing. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members and approve the application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have no issue with this. I’ve seen it before and I guess we just did something in error by not realizing the 100 foot had to be there. I’m in favor of the way it is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, am in favor of it. So does someone want to make a motion? MR. KUHL-Do you want me to make the motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. KUHL-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from MH Imperial Homes. Applicant requests approval of the placement of a 1,456 sq. ft. modular home in a Rural Residential 3-Acre Zone. Existing shed, driveway, side entry, and front entry to remain the same. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of a home that had recently been installed in the Rural Residential zone, RR3A. The parcel is 19,702 sq. ft. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The home has been placed with front setback at 81.0 ft., the rear setback at 88.5 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required; the side setback to the west is 26.3 ft. and to the east is 21.9 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required. . SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 29, 2021. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as basically this is just another situation with a smaller lot in an RR-3 zone. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance really is not substantial, mainly due to the size of the lot, again, in an RR- 3 acre zone. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty really is not self-created, again because of the size of the lot. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2021 MH IMPERIAL HOMES, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 29th Day of September 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. LaSarso, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. HEWLETT-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Next up on the agenda is an Unlisted Action, that is Saxton Sign, Darren Katz, for McDonald’s. The project location is 364 Dix Avenue, Ward 2. They’re asking for an additional wall sign. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2021 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SAXTON SIGN (DARREN KATZ) FOR MC DONALD’S AGENT(S) SAXTON SIGN (DARREN KATZ) OWNER(S) JOSEF GAILIL ZONING CI LOCATION 364 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 19.53 SQ. FT. SIGN ON THE NORTH FACE OF THE EXISTING MC DONALD’S BUILDING. THE EXISTING BUILDING OF 3,460 SQ. FT. IS TO REMAIN THE SAME. THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGNS ARE TO REMAIN THE SAME. THE SIGN ON THE WEST FACE OF THE BUILDING IS THE PERMITTED WALL SIGN. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE SITE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR TWO WALL SIGNS WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. CROSS REF SIGN 563-2021; SIGN 564-2021; SV 2-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2021 LOT SIZE 1.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-1-3.2 SECTION 140 TERRY MEISSNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 5-2021, Saxton Sign (Darren Katz), Meeting Date: September 29, 2021 “Project Location: 364 Dix Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 19.53 sq. ft. sign on the north face of the existing McDonald’s building. The existing building of 3,460 sq. ft. is to remain the same. The existing freestanding signs are to remain the same. The sign on the west face of the building is the permitted wall sign. There are no changes to the site. Relief requested for two wall signs where only one is allowed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for two wall signs where only one is allowed in the Commercial Intensive zone, CI. The parcel is 1.8 acres. Section 140 – sign number 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) Applicant proposes two wall signs where only one is allowed – the new sign is to be on the north side of the building and to be 19.53 sq. ft. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of signs requested. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested to have 1 additional wall sign. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is for an existing McDonald’s where the new sign is proposed on the North side of the building. The north side is the front of the building facing Dix Avenue. Patrons utilize the entrance access on Dix Avenue and the interconnect access on Quaker Road. The plans show the location of the permitted sign and the proposed sign.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you have anything you’d like to add at this point? MR. MEISSNER-Everything’s been said. MRS. DWYRE-Can you just state your name for the record, please. MR. MEISSNER-My name’s Terry Meissner from Saxton Sign Corporation. MRS. DWYRE-Thank you. MR. MEISSNER-They want to try to get people from Dix Avenue to come in that entrance. That’s their main goal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions? MRS. HAMLIN-What’s the total square footage normally allowed for one sign? MRS. MOORE-Thirty square feet for one wall sign. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. LA SARSO-Do you know how bright that sign will be? MR. MEISSNER-It will be the same as the one on the west side. MR. LA SARSO-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess I’ll start with you, John. MRS. MOORE-You need to close the public hearing first. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. Sorry. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt that’s one of the most visible sides of that building, the north side. So it deserves a sign there, and they’re only asking for relief of 19.53 square feet. So I would definitely be on board with allowing it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this. I think it’s a good project, Mr. Chairman. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement. I think it’s a good project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thumbs up. I’m in agreement. MR. UNDERWOOD-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Personally I’d like the two signs be an aggregate sign and you split it, but you’ve already got one. So our other Board members are correct. You should have a sign on that side of the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-I’m on board, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I, too, support your project. I think, you know, with the weird skew of Dix Avenue, you come to it on a weird angle and the building is kind of weird in there with the interconnect coming through in the back, too. It’s difficult to tell what it is and where it is. So I’d also approve of your sign. So does somebody want to make a motion? MR. HENKEL-Do you want to make a motion for SEQR? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, this is an Unlisted Action. John, do you want to do the SEQR on this. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2021. APPLICANT NAME: SAXTON SIGN (DARREN KATZ) FOR MCDONALD’S, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 29th Day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Now I’ll ask for a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Saxton Sign (Darren Katz) for McDonald’s. Applicant proposes to install a 19.53 sq. ft. sign on the north face of the existing McDonald’s building. The existing building of 3,460 sq. ft. is to remain the same. The existing freestanding signs are to remain the same. The sign on the west face of the building is the permitted wall sign. There are no changes to the site. Relief requested for two wall signs where only one is allowed. Relief Required: 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) The applicant requests relief for two wall signs where only one is allowed in the Commercial Intensive zone, CI. The parcel is 1.8 acres. Section 140 – sign number Applicant proposes two wall signs where only one is allowed – the new sign is to be on the north side of the building and to be 19.53 sq. ft. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 5-2021. Applicant Name: Saxton Sign (Darren Katz) for McDonald’s, based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 29th Day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 29, 2021; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? It blends right in with the overall restaurant and there should be no change. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? I really don’t think so as it identifies the restaurant. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No, not really. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, it won’t. It blends right in with the restaurant. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? You could say it is because they’re looking for a second sign. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 5- 2021 SAXTON SIGN (DARREN KATZ) FOR MC DONALD’S, Saxton Sign, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. th Duly adopted this 29 Day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. MC DEVITT-Good luck. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Next up on the agenda is Area Variance for Brett & Pamela West for the Main House that’s located at 106 Bay Parkway, Ward 1. AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) BRETT & PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO THE EXISTING HOME AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 5,710 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND A PATIO AREA OF 1,800 SQ. FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 9,199 SQ. FT.; A 500 SQ. FT. BARN IS ALSO PROPOSED ADDING TO THE FLOOR AREA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING OF SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, DRIVEWAY AREA, A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE MAIN HOME AND A PROPOSED ON HOME ON THE ADJOINING PARCEL. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A 375 SQ. FT. PORTE-COCHERE AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE WITH AN ADDITIONAL KITCHEN CONSIDERED A SECOND UNIT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, HEIGHT, ADDITIONAL GARAGE AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 51-2021; SEP 342-2021; PZ 210-2016 ; PZ 95-2016; PZ 89-2016; SP 37-2009; AV 47-2007; SP 39-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2021, Brett & Pamela West (Main House), Meeting Date: September 29, 2021 “Project Location: 106 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demo existing home and construct a new home of 5,710 sq. ft. (footprint) and a patio area of 1,800 sq. ft. The new floor area is 9,199 sq. ft. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management, driveway area, a covered walkway between the main home and a proposed home on the adjoining parcel. Project also includes a 375 sq. ft. porte-cochere and an attached garage. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, permeability, height, second garage, and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, height, second garage, sheds size total square footage and floor area for a new home and associated accessory buildings. Project is in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Parcel is 0.91 acres Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 sheds, garages The new home is to be located 30 ft. to the east shoreline, 31 ft. to the west shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The covered walkway is to be 0 ft. from the west side setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. The project proposes two garages where only one is allowed – the porte-cochere is considered a garage due to width of open sides allowing vehicles. The project proposes two accessory buildings one is an existing 75 sq. ft. pump storage shed and the other is a new 500 sq. ft. barn, where relief is for exceeding 500 sq. ft. maximum size for sheds. Relief is also requested for floor area where 9,202 sq. ft. 23.3% is proposed and 8,687 sq. ft. 22% is allowed. Permeability relief where 69.1% is proposed and 75% is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be possible to reduce the overall size of the home, shed, increase the permeability. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested to east shoreline 20 ft., west shoreline 19 ft. The covered walkway 20 ft. Relief for an additional garage. Relief for accessory buildings 75 sq. ft. in excess. Relief for floor area is 1.3 % in excess. Permeability relief 5.9% less than required. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The applicant has included new stormwater measures that did not exist prior and proposes a new septic system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing building to construct a new home. The first floor plan shows living room area, kitchen, dining room, the porte-cochere, media room, small office, game room, and a two car garage. Note the area labeled wet bar will have no kitchen elements. The second floor plan shows bathrooms, closets, bedrooms, and a loft area above the garage. The covered walkway extends to the adjoining property also owned by the applicant. The plans show the location of the new home, driveway area, shed location, plantings, patio areas and holding tanks. The plans also include elevations and floor plans.” MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board made the following recommendation that the Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern. 1. Size of the house, FAR. 2. Number of variances and, 3. Setbacks. And that was passed unanimously on September th 28, 2021 by a unanimous seven, zero vote. MR. UNDERWOOD-Good evening. If you guys would identify yourselves, please. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Chris Keil from Environmental Design, the project engineer. So tonight we have two applications on the agenda, the Main House and the Guesthouse and they’re separate, and we’ll talk about them separately, but I want to start out just talking about the history of the project which involves both. So as many of you may remember from being on the Board, five years ago in 2016 we were here twice, and at that point Brett and Pam had owned for a while, it was the old Stewart property, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, for many years, on the Point of Assembly Point, and their intention was to keep the old log house and to renovate it, but because of the constraints of the lot and the house itself, which is a very old log home, in order to make it livable as a year round house, they needed to push a little bit towards the lake, and that’s what the APA objected to, but this Board understood that it was pretty minor changes, but it was overturned twice by the APA. So learning that lesson now five years later this proposal is to pull it back from the lake. So what we’re showing to begin with is, the gray on top is where the existing house is. So no part of this is closer to the lake. In fact it’s a little bit farther from the lake than what the existing house is. So that’s a benefit, and then they’ve already gone to the Board of Health on both sites and they’ve been approved for septic holding tanks. So that’s also beneficial to the Town, to the site, because it’s high water table, and the high water table is a constraint. They can’t have a basement here. So the reason why they have the 500 square foot shed is just to store everything because they don’t have storage in the house. So to explain what’s going on here, the floor area ratio request on this is 23.3. So it’s only 1.3%. On the south house it’s 25.6, but all together it’s basically 500 square feet on each. So that one is smaller, and if you blend it together, which of course they’re separate applications, we’re talking about 1.9% on the two lots. So this is not somebody coming in trying to do something dramatically bigger than what they can do, and in truth for floor area ratio we count the porte-cochere and in this case there’s a covered walkway which we’ll show you, but the covered walkway is an Adirondack feature, an architectural feature, and just like the porte-cochere, it’s not living space, it’s open air space. It creates an Adirondack character. So if you eliminated both of those, which the applicants don’t want to do because it’s important for them, year round, to be able to connect the guesthouse to the main house, but if you eliminated the porte-cochere and the covered walkway, everything, well, the total number would comply with the floor area ratio. That’s the difference here, and that’s not living space, and we all understand in Queensbury we have the rule about the limited size of garage, and the porte-cochere, because you drive under it, counts as a garage, but it’s not a garage. It’s just a pull up and unload your packages when you’re coming home after going to Hannaford. So, you know, the explanation is really that these are minor, important architectural features, but pretty minor features, 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) and compared to many lake lots that we all talk about, the 23.3 and the 25.6 on that smaller southern lot, are still pretty modest floor area ratio requests. So going on to the next most important, permeability. After discussing this with the Planning Board, they said their recommendation to limit the number of variances, so in reviewing all this with the project team, we realized that all of the pavement areas are pavers here, and they’re going to be heated. So it’s lovely to have. So the way it’s designed now, it’s set in concrete. So that counts as completely impermeable, but working this through with Witt Construction that designed it, we can make all of that permeable. So we’re going to withdraw the request for permeability variance on both sites. We’ll be able to comply with permeability by making it pavers set in stone rather than concrete. So we don’t need a permeability variance and that’s part of what the Planning Board talked about last night, and we don’t need a height variance on either of these. That was in error. We’re not asking for a height variance. So now there’s no permeability and there’s no height variance. In terms of the setback variances, to have the covered walkway attach both houses so during inclement weather you can go between the guesthouse and the main house, they both have to go to the property line, obviously, to connect because it’s two lots. So the zero lot line is just to have that connected. We certainly would agree as a condition of approval that if these were ever in separate ownership that that would come down so that it would comply, it would be 20 feet from the property line on the north lot. So that’s something that isn’t a big deal I think if they’re in the same ownership. If they’re in separate ownership that could be eliminated. On the southern lot, the house is 10 feet from the property line rather than 20 feet, but that’s the north property line where the main house is. So that actually, we’re respecting the setback for the southern neighbor and just moving the house closer to the northern lot. So that doesn’t affect the neighborhood, and also on the southern lot, which we’ll talk about in a minute, but there’s, in order to make this work as one, there’s a circular driveway that has one entrance. So it’s a good thing for the neighborhood to limit a curb cut. So here we need a variance because the southern lot isn’t using its own access, its own frontage as access. It’s using the northern lot to go around the circle. So that definitely requires a variance, but that’s a good way to eliminate a curb cut, and it also allows to, heavily planted along the road there, to shield the neighbors, and I guess I should just mention that before we got here, you know, last year the applicants planted 20 arborvitae along the southern property line that are 10 feet tall and that’s a buffer for the neighbor on the south, that big hedge. So in terms of what’s going on here, there are minor requests for floor area ratio, but the site is shielded, not having a driveway and having the hedge that’s there. So then if you look at the red line, that’s the building envelope, and the constraint on this lot, because you’ve got water on all sides, is you could build a house, you could take the square feet that we’re proposing here, put them in that white triangle, and then you wouldn’t need a setback variance, but that wouldn’t make for a very practical house design. There’s nothing in the house itself that exceeds the floor area, if you look at it the way I’m proposing. It’s the porte-cochere and the covered walkway that make up the difference. At the very top, it’s not dark it’s in white, is the pump house and we have a picture of that. That’s the only thing that would remain from what’s there now. It’s just a historical pump house shed to hold the pump but they want to keep it because, I mean it needs to be protected and it needs to be next to the lake, but it’s the only historical part of this that’s going to stay. Laura, could you put up the covered walkway photos. Thanks. MR. HENKEL-But isn’t the pump house needed because they use the lake water. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Yes, so obviously it’s needed. MR. LAPPER-But it’s a separate structure. These are just examples that Brett sent us that, some of the great camps, but the covered walkway is part of the Adirondack camp experience and architecture. On this site it just works. Two separate residences that they want to connect for convenience. It’s kind of a lovely architectural feature. And then if you’d go back to the first one, please. If you want this picture of the shed also, Laura. MR. HENKEL-The only problem with the ones you’re showing us there is there’s a reason for those walkways, because it’s not a flat surface to get from one to the other. That’s the only problem. MR. LAPPER-I’ll show you ours, too. It drops down. So that’s the shed for the pump house. Do you want to put up the architectural that shows the, to John’s comment, that shows the covered walkway elevation. MR. HENKEL-I kind of understand. I was there Monday walking the property. MR. LAPPER-There it is. So there’s somewhat of a grade change, nothing dramatic, but it drops down between the two. Could you go back to the architecture of the house itself. So if you look at this also, the second floor is built into the roof. So, you know, within the allowable height this could be a two story h house with a roof on top of it, but the mass and scale are minimized by this design. They’re all kind of dormered. So it’s not as dramatic as if there were two floors with a roof on top of that to try and minimize it, and again, it’s not the house, you know, the house size works for the floor area. It’s just these other features, the porte-cochere and the walkway, and then, Laura, could you put the picture up of the 500 square foot barn. That’s on the same set. There it is, and that’s also a lovely architectural feature, just for the tractor and kayaks because again we don’t have a basement. They can’t have a basement, and the 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) garage is actually used for cars so they can put those away. So the Planning Board was focusing on the fact that there were a large number of variances, and in discussion and since then we’ve totally eliminated permeability, and I think that, you know, you look at this with the 23.3 and the 25.6 on the smaller southern lot, these are pretty minimal compared to what a lot of lake lots are asking for these days, and the main constraint is just the picture that we with, with the red line for the setback because of the odd shape of the parcel, and we’re staying farther away from the lake than what’s there now that was done to minimize that variance, and better than what was approved last time. So that explains really both sites. It gives the history of how they started to try to keep that log home and try to do something that works and when we were here last time they hadn’t acquired the southern lot. So they bought the neighbor’s property, demolished the house, got approval for both holding tanks, which of course was an expense and an inconvenience, but it’s a necessary thing when you have a lot with water all around it, and eliminating the curb cut as well. So we think that on balance this is really pretty minimal, the difference in the two lots and 500 square feet on each which is not dramatic, and if you said that we had to comply and take away the porte-cochere and the covered walkway, we believe it would be a shame just architecturally and functionally, that’s all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions at this time? MR. HENKEL-The last time we approved the porte-cochere anyway. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-There was mention of future sale. So are you thinking in terms of? MR. LAPPER-No. That was just, somebody had mentioned that, Laura and I discussed that, that somebody would have a concern if that ever happened. No, they have no intention of, this isn’t. MRS. HAMLIN-I know they have no intentions, but it definitely can happen. MR. LAPPER-Exactly, and so for that reason we throw that out as a condition so you wouldn’t have to worry there would be something built to the property line if it were ever separated. They’ll probably stay in a trust for a long, long time. MR. KUHL-Are both lots in the applicants’ name? MR. LAPPER-Yes. The second lot I think we purchased a couple of years ago. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I believe they formed an LLC to purchase the second one that they own. So it’s them. It’s all them. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. If there’s no more questions from Board members, I think I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak, raise your hand. Come up, please. MRS. MOORE-And, Mr. Chairman, you might want to explain that there could be a time limit. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We’ll set a time limit and please don’t repeat things if someone has already mentioned something. If you have something more to add. Please identify yourself.. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing and I live on Assembly Point. First I feel that the variances requested are substantial if measured in terms of percentage increase over the existing or permitted conditions. I’ll give one example that I put in my letter to you. Take permeability. I’d like to state for the record that the Lake George Park Commission does not consider pavers as pervious. So I think the issue of permeability still stands. And if you look at the existing property, it is 20.2% impermeable according to the site development plan. The proposed project would increase this to 30.9%. This is not just a 10.7% increase. It is a 53% increase if one looks at the relative change from 20 to 31%. These are not small changes. My second point is that the increased hard surfaces, which you can see by comparing the present home to the proposed home, garages, barn, walkway, patios and driveway, will result in increased stormwater runoff which supposedly will be captured by one raingarden, and I don’t know if you wanted to put up the existing structures that are in the site plans. According to the Environmental Design Partnership any overflow will be diverted to the lake, that is overflow from the raingarden. We have increased stormwater runoff from more frequent and heavier rain events and this compounds the decrease in permeability, and as you know Assembly Point was the site of a HAB’s outbreak last November and this HAB’s encircled the entire Point including the West properties. Lastly I urge you 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) to look at the underwater photos in my letter of the West shoreline and they were taken by Kathy Bozony in 2021 and I ask, do we need more nutrients in the water before we completely degrade our water supply with stormwater runoff. Given the magnitude and complexity of this project, I wonder if you have had sufficient time to study it, especially with the recent revisions. So my request to you is that you ask the Wests to re-design their project to minimize hard surfaces and protect the lake. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak. Chris. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I also would like to start off reading some history from 2016, their previous application where their argument for trying to keep the house closer to the lake where it was. Then Mr. Lapper said “anybody else or most people that put a beautiful piece of property like this on the lake on the point on Assembly Point would want to scrap the house and start all over again because it is an antiquated, although very classic architecture of this wood house, log house on the outside, wood house on the inside, and there is an area on the site that could accommodate a much larger house where what we’re talking about is ultimately 17% floor area ratio where this could go to 22.” It’s going to be more than that. “So the lot would support a much larger house. That’s not what Brett and Pam want to do. They really want to just tweak the house, keep the character”, again, change in character, “and make what we hope you’ll see are modest changes to make it more livable, but with the whole intent of keeping what’s been there for 75 years there and just make it a little bit better.” Also back then Mr. Allison of AJ Architects talked about limiting the impervious cover on the property, which they’re still going to increase. We started talking about different opportunities and constraints, and I told him, I said if we’re going to do something like that, to move the house or add something, you can’t really just go ahead and keep on increasing impervious area here, so you need to find ways to mitigate that if you’re going to have a chance of making this a good project.” So clearly they’re increasing impervious cover, but this one really was good, because it talked about protecting the areas on the site that were actually good, and they were talking about not building back where they’re proposing now. So we really tried to keep it as close as possible to the encroachments that exist there right now, and the reality of what happens on this site by geology and hydrology, it’s probably the part of the site that’s only impacted by what’s happening on that site. So as a designer I started looking at this and I said, you know, if we really came back here and built a much larger structure, which they’re proposing,” and building that structure in the one area where I right now have pervious capabilities and when I started thinking and taking up the land for the building, it’s actually much more detrimental to the water quality than to take the land out here where the Point was. So they said that it would be much more detrimental to the lake to build where they’re actually proposing now. So giving you my comments, I’ll just quickly run through these, we feel that the two sections, and I think they should provide the permeability changes because it’s still borderline I think. So I think those should be submitted. The FAR and the permeability clearly important aspects to protect water quality in a Critical Environmental Area. We still feel they don’t protect the natural resources and features on the property. Too much disturbance and it relies too heavily on these permeable pavers which can have questionable benefits. This is a very highly visible property and it will change the character and exceeds the mitigation capacity of the lot which is the basis for the FAR. They should provide a detail on the vegetation to be removed. They’re really cutting all the trees that are important along that eastern property line where that existing intermittent stream is. Also, when you’re putting that walkway in, you’re almost tying all those buildings together when you look at it from the lake. That’s going to appear like those two lots have one large continuous building. So again I think there are alternatives. They clearly can reduce the floor area. The development will also expand into the areas where there are better soils which will reduce the areas for proper stormwater treatment. So I think more information should be submitted.. To change things right here and come in without the proper numbers I don’t think is fair to the Board or to the neighbors, and they should revise it and make it complete. A revised application and consider the alternatives. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak this evening? PAMELA LESTER-GOLDE MRS. LESTER-GOLDE-I am speaking for John Caffry who is a resident on Assembly Point, about five or six houses down from the Wests. “Dear Board Members: I am writing as a property owner and seasonal resident on Assembly Point. These variance applications should be denied. The fact that each of the two houses proposed by the West family requires multiple variances shows that the houses are too big for the lots. The houses and accessory structures should be modified to fit onto the lots without variances. The rules from which variances are sought - shoreline setbacks, permeability, floor area ratio, and building height - are there for a reason, to protect the water quality and scenic beauty of Lake George. The private desire of the property owners to build two oversized homes should not be allowed to override those important public purposes. The present plans require variances that would be substantial and would adversely affect the environment. The hardship is self-created. Fortunately, alternatives exist that would allow the property owners to achieve their goal of expanding their housing. The plans could be revised to make the houses smaller, move the paved areas away from the lake, and rearrange the layout, all of which should allow for a project that does not require any variances. The project was improperly classified as a 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) Type II action under SEQR. These applications are an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQR”). Therefore, an environmental assessment form must be filed and the lead agency must make a determination of significance under 6 NYCRR Part 17. Although the construction of a single family residence, and certain types of variances, are exempt from SEQR review as “Type II Actions”, those exemptions are inapplicable here because the project actually involves two single family residences, on two lots, and will require multiple variances. See 6 NYCRRR § 617.5 (c) (11), (16) & (17). The SEQR review of this Project is especially important because it is located in a “critical environmental area” created by the Lake George Park Commission. See 6 NYCRR § 617.14(g); § 645-3.8. A coordinated review of both planned houses should be conducted, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617.6 (b)(2)(i) & (3). Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, John W. Caffry” I am also Pamela Lester-Golde. I am registered Landscape Architect with the State of New York and I happen to be the adjacent property owner. The FAR on these houses, the two light gray areas that are noted to the north of the proposed house, those are patios. They are not house, and there are patios projected for the entire side of the north face of the proposed house. So I find that this representation is misrepresented, the setback requirements. The pavers are heated, and there’s no permeability as others have pointed out, but I would like to know what pavers they are specifically using because each paver has a percentage of permeability. Most pavers are around the 10% range, not 100%. The design of these houses have been set up, both in the main house as well as in the second house, to have large offices in them as well as a wet bar. Now they all have individual entrances to them, potentially allowing these houses to be made into multi-family or to be turned into commercial or office space. There is no information on the percolation rates that they should have done in order to do the storm drainage report, and the water table by the Soil Conservation Service has it at 12 to 27 inches below finished grade. The grade on the center of the site, the circle, the traffic circle for the driveway, is at 324. The median high water mark around the Point is 320. So you’re talking, you already have only four feet and that’s at the highest point. Most of that parcel is down around 322. As a matter of fact their raingarden is at 322.9, and then you have the mean water at 320.2. That’s roughly two feet, and their raingarden indicates that the gravel trench that is in it is 11.1 by 11.1 by 4 feet deep,, meaning that there is no water cleansing. So the gravel is already in the high water mark. So I would find that all of these issues in regards to permeability and the FAR be denied. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak? LISA ADAMSON MS. ADAMSON-Lisa Adamson, Assembly Point. I live about four houses south of Pam Golde, five houses south of Brett West, and when I saw that picture go up of the walkways I thought, those are really beautiful. They really have the Adirondack feel. And then I saw the rest of the illustrations and I thought that’s not reflective of our neighborhood, but it’s reflective of a few of the mansions that are out there. So that’s just my subjective opinion. I had sent you all a letter. I wasn’t planning to come tonight, but I’ll try to read just briefly from the letter because I understood that you don’t automatically read them. So I’m part of the Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition and we’ve attended numerous of these zoning and planning meetings over the years. We have an expert limnologist on our team and the rest of us, or many of us who are laypeople do our due diligence by trying to read all the metrics and understand what the impacts of the FAR and the lack of permeability really mean. For me my feeling is this project is just too large, based on everything that’s been said here tonight and what I’ve read. I’ll tell you as a neighbor it’s very uncomfortable to come and have to say something about another neighbor’s plans and dreams. I feel like we are in a time when the Zoning Board and the Planning Board has an obligation to be thinking about reducing rather than making variances on our Town Codes and rules. I was lucky enough to be appointed to, by Supervisor Strough, and sit on Chris Navitsky’s really excellent LID, Low Impact Development, Committee for a year, in which we were evaluating Town Codes and have submitted it to the Town. It’s still pending, to be sure that all of the Codes were increasingly stringent and careful about this very fragile lake that we’re living on now. We all know that the water quality is degrading and it just makes me wonder if we can’t entrust our Boards to set the highest bar right now for just saying no to exceptions. Why do we have exceptions to our rules. So I’m just repeating what I’m sure you’ve heard many times. We need to trust you guys to be the ones to move towards limiting rather than making exceptions, because I really feel that we’re part of an ecosystem that’s at a tipping point. We’re all seeing it, and our lake is changing in front of. So nothing short of strong limiting and consistent regulation and enforcement in the areas of construction, septic and land management is acceptable and I feel our engineers and our agents, in creating these projects, need to identify the homeowners before they get their hopes up that they can build a dream house that’s really not fair to the ecosystems. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. There are two letters by people that haven’t spoken already tonight. So “It is disturbing that the Zoning Board of the Town of Queensbury continues to grant variances given the increasingly alarming knowledge concerning the fragility of Lake George. The Wests are asking for variances on every aspect of the zoning laws. These are not minor variances. This plan to overbuild two houses, add patios and walkways that are barely permeable and that defy the 20’ setback is not in the spirit of protecting the Lake which we all use. I am part owner of a house on Assembly Point. Our family has loved and protected the Lake for over 100 years. It is discouraging that degradation of the Lake is 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) progressing at an alarming rate and that people continue to ask for variances to laws which are meant to protect the Lake. I ask the Zoning Board to uphold the zoning laws, not give in to requests for variances that will further add to the Lake’s precarious health, and request that the Wests change their design to reflect, first and foremost, concern for the health of the Lake. Sincerely, Judith Kempshall 128 Lake Parkway Lake George, NY 12845” And then, “This letter is in regards to the Public Hearing scheduled for Wednesday, September 29, 2021 regarding variance requests for 106 Bay Parkway (Tax ID No. 226.15- 1-17) and 108 Bay Parkway (Tax ID No. 226.15-1-1.16). In general, I am opposed to variance request approvals except in circumstances where a small lot size cannot accommodate a reasonably sized home. Building codes should be enforced except in extenuating circumstances. In this instance, however, the landowner has two adjacent lots with 0.91 acres and 0.34 acres for a combined area of 1.25 acres. Acreage this size permits the landowner to construct a sizeable home (or two homes in this case) that would accommodate nearly any size family. The applicant is planning on building two homes; the first of which is 5,722 sq. ft. with the second at 3,741 sq. ft. Homes this size, combined with the proposed covered walkway, patio, and barn are out of character with the homes on Assembly Point and are unnecessary if they require variance waivers. I am most troubled by the height and floor area variance waivers needed. Surely, the landowner can construct beautiful homes with a floor area less than 9,199 sq. ft. without the need for a variance. That outcome would not diminish the applicant’s lifestyle and preserve the character of Assembly Point. I urge you to reject the landowner’s request for height and floor area variances. Thank you, Richard Chase” 120 Lake Parkway. That’s all I have. MR. LAPPER-So the water quality comments, algae and nutrients, here we have septic holding tanks on both sites, which is, you know, the algae blooms are because of people that have homes that are non- conforming and that’s why we have, when something changes hands, we have a law that you have to check, but there’s nothing better for the lake than putting in holding tanks, even though they’re not too convenient and expensive for the property owner. So this certainly won’t be adding to nutrients. This project has a complete conforming stormwater management plan that Environmental Design has submitted. We’re not before you on that because there’s no variances requested. That’s conforming. Chris mentioned the removal of trees in the center of the site. Yes, to build the houses, but all the trees along the shoreline were insignificant to buffer the project, were going to stay and the planting plan is expensive, in terms of adding shrubs and other plants to supplement the trees. Chris also talked about that the mass of the walkway would make it seem like one big building, but that’s not true, because it’s light in there, it’s only a roof. So you can see right through it, and it doesn’t look like a building. It looks like an Adirondack covered walkway, and the rest of the comments were really about water quality, but, you know, again, permeability, we’re taking it off the table. We’re not requesting the variance. It will have to comply and will comply. We’ve done the math. So by making the whole thing permeable pavers we won’t need the variance and did discuss that with the Planning Board last night, and if you want to talk about the stormwater plan, Chris. MR. KEIL-Sure. And just follow up on converting to the permeable paver, that’s something that Witt Construction, the contractor, feels comfortable in doing. He’s done a patio, driveway setting. He’s done it before. If we do that, count those permeable paving areas as 50%, is what typically the Lake George Park Commission does. MR. LAPPER-Queensbury allows. MR. KEIL-Queensbury allows, then that would be at 76.6% permeability In terms of the stormwater plan, it would be our lifting the house up a little bit to create a little more drop to those raingardens. I mean we have multiple raingardens along the site, four in total. So the water’s not being concentrated to a single feature or treatment. Also, you know, as was mentioned already, there’s going to be a robust planting plan around the house, including keeping those mature trees, mature vegetation around the on the shoreline. Queensbury Code doesn’t allow fertilizer in close proximity to the lake. Those are certain things that have a huge impact on water quality. So all in all we see that as a big improvement on the existing condition of the lot right now in terms of stormwater runoff and treatment. MR. LAPPER-And again I guess I should just make sure, because Chris was quoting from 2016. It’ll be the intention, of course, we came back twice to try and keep the other house, but it wasn’t going to fly because of the lake setbacks. So this was the second choice, but we think that this is being done respectfully to the lot in terms of the environmental issue and the Staff Notes that this will be positive for the environmental, but also the house itself, people talked about the size, and because as I mentioned, with the, built in to the gable roofs, this isn’t a massive house. It’s really a very, very lovely house and I think it is an important lot on the lake, both going around the Point when you see something that’s going to, really spectacular architecture but also not a two story house with a roof on top of it and I think it’s totally appropriate and the house, again, the extra square footage is the porte cochere and the walkway. So they’re not trying to jam a big house like somebody else might here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. At this time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’m going to poll the Board. MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a few questions, first. Does Mr. West own some of that property across the road? MR. LAPPER-Yes, everybody has a little. MR. HENKEL-Because my wife’s. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Excuse me. He does not own. MR. LAPPER-There’s an Association and everyone has some rights. MR. HENKEL-I know for a fact because my wife’s family had property around the corner on the other side towards Harris Bay, and they owned a lot across there, and they put some drywells in there to protect their lakefront property. They put it on the other side there. AUDIENCE MEMBER-No, they cannot. MR. HENKEL-Sorry, this was years ago, back probably in the 80’s they put some drywells. AUDIENCE MEMBER-No, they have not. I have lived there for 61 years and I’m secretary of the board of that Association. MR. HENKEL-If you remember Dr. Rhodes. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes, I do. There are no drywells there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just a point of reference, ma’am, you’re not allowed to speak at this point. The Board is deliberating. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well when you are talking about misrepresentation it needs to be corrected. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I know for a fact, because that’s where a lot of that water comes from, that middle part there, and then it goes across the properties on the lakeside. I was just saying that could be limited if that was, but, okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does anybody have any other questions? All right. I’m going to start with you, Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you for starting with me. So here’s what I said. We have a Critical Environmental Area. We have an eco-system that’s changing. None of us should argue with those points. What I believe is that we have some revisions and some changes that were made, and I think those may be good relative to permeability, etc. However, that changed, and it changed and was not reflected as we walked in here this evening. So I what I want to see is, and I render no opinion one way or the other on this, but what I need to see, which ultimately I’m not going to speak for anybody else, but may require tabling this, but I’m just going to tell you what I need to see to give consideration one way or another. I want to know specifics of pavers. I want to see, I know on some applications we have seen tear sheets, spec sheets. I want to see the pavers. I want to understand. We can’t just talk about pavers. Google pavers and you’ll have 27 pages of, so I need to understand specifically what the pavers are, and the associated good, bad or in between of those. I need to I think better understand, you know, there’s been some comments relative to vegetation and some things removed. What I would also want to understand is, if there is to be planting, I want to understand specifics relative to what that planting plan looks like. So we don’t just say we’re going to plant things. I want to understand what we’re planting. I want to understand the pavers as noted. The algae blooms that are referenced, the holding tanks already benefit. The stormwater plan is a benefit. We are talking about things that are good, not bad, but we are also talking about things which are to me still a moving variable that I don’t understand right now, and I’m going to guess that not everyone probably does here. So I’m hearing the opposition. I’m understanding the applicant. I’m looking to understand some of these issues better, and that’s where I’m falling at this point, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’m with Brent in terms of seeing the landscaping plan for sure, and the details, and just gravel, just to mention it, when it gets compacted it’s not necessarily any more porous than concrete after a while. So I don’t know if that’s a solution. That’s just something I understand. I don’t know if it’s true. I think you need to be quite creative. I might even consider a lot line adjustment. The smaller house is almost compliant and perhaps with a lot line adjustment something could happen there and then we could concentrate better on the main house. I think there’s far too much parts of this and it may be your 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) dream house but maybe a walkway, I mean, it’s two separate properties, and they are proposed here as two separate properties. I appreciate that. Perhaps you need to think of that. If there’s a potential for a future sale, eliminating that walkway, regardless of what , I mean, two driveways, it depends on how far apart they are, how busy the road is. You may think it’s beneficial, but having direct access is what’s required by State law and it may be to the advantage in the future if you ever want to sell it, and I think in that doing that you could eliminate the circular drive. So as it stands, and also I would like to see that, your encroachment into the shoreline. I would like to see that substantially less. So perhaps a perhaps a reconfiguration could happen. So as it stands I am not in favor of granting any of these variances. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Right now, you guys have spoken to a bunch of things. I agree with pretty much everything my fellow Board members have said. I just want to say if we were to approve it, assuming those changes did go through, I would like to see that setback approval be conditional, if it does get sold, it does change hands, I would like to see that included in there. If that was in there, I would definitely be closer to a yes, assuming that those changes were made. I could definitely get to a yes, but as it stands right now I’m definitely leaning towards no without those changes. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, Mr. McDevitt and Mrs. Hamlin definitely brought up some good views there. They said it better than I could ever say it, but I don’t really have any problem with where the house is situated. That’s good. I’d be a little concerned on too much pavers on the lakeside. If they could reduce that a little bit I’d be happier. Obviously we’re not dealing with height anymore or permeability, according to what you’ve told us, but we’d like to see some percentages there. The permeable pavers closer to the lake is what I have a big problem with and also kind of the covered, the walkway. I kind of understand that in some of those pictures that you’re showing us, but in this respect the property is fairly level and I don’t know if there’s really a need for that, but that’s where my concerns are, but otherwise I think it’s a fairly good project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think, you know, the setbacks, the other house, the older house, had setback issues. I have no issues with that. Second garages, you’re trying to do something in front of the house. I realize it enhances the view of the house. The biggest issue I have is floor area ratio. Long and short that’s it. I mean you’re building a big house. I think things could be changed to get the floor area ratio in balance. Other than that, I mean I’m not in favor of it at this time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m basically in agreement with everybody else so far. I think when you see something that’s so voluminous in terms of variance requests, many times we try to break it down into bitable bits, but this one is hard to do that. Everything is so interrelated here. So I think we need to do a better job of trying to mitigate what you’re asking for, and I’m not going to repeat everything everybody said, but they made some great points, and the permeability also, not only the pavers themselves, but they need to be kept up. MR. LAPPER-That could be a maintenance plan. MR. URRICO-So I think the maintenance plan I think has to be brought out in here as well at some point. So that’s where I stand. I’m not going to be able to approve it tonight, but I want to see some better mitigation for what you propose. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we need to tread lightly here and I think we need to review this and send it back to you for re-consideration, you know, with some major changes in effect. The existing building that you have on that site fits on that site, and maintenance of the Critical Environmental Area which surrounds the Point should be more important than the grandiose plan that’s been proposed here this evening. This maximizes building structures and impermeability on the property and we should all be concerned with that. At this point in time, the existing requests for largely oversized bedrooms, common rd areas as well as large kitchen areas could easily be shrunk by 1/3 to 1/2 . I think you still have a great camp concept that you could roll with on this one. As far as the adjoining over to the second property over on the other side over there, too, I think that the great camp concept has always been something that’s been part of the Adirondacks. I don’t really see this as an intrusive element of your design. I think that at the same time you have to respect the fact that you’re reducing almost 9,000 square feet of building space which is much more, you’re in a very prominent location on that Point out there and I think you need to scale this back by 2,000 square feet maybe even more. You could still accommodate and have yourself a wonderful location, a wonderful home. I think your plan emphasizes all those elements hat we like to see in the design and things like that at the same time, but you’re going to have to pass muster with the APA and I don’t think that we, I think it would be wrong for us to approve your project with the size that you’re 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) proposing here. I think you could dial it back, you could fit in better. You’d still have the same elements that you want to have. So at this point in time I think we’re going to go for a tabling motion here. MR. LAPPER-I would ask you to table both of them. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would think that it would make sense to table both, this and the following one. MR. LAPPER-These are all good suggestions. I mean we’re not surprised, and I apologize that it was through the Planning Board discussion that we just figured out reducing the permeability so we don’t need a variance. So we certainly need to document that, but we’ll take into account everything you said and come back with a better plan and hopefully it’ll be approvable. MRS. MOORE-So I’m just going to add a couple of things in here. When you do make your motions, you’re going to make two separate motions. With the second motion in reference to that other lot, in reference to the public hearing, you can open the public hearing and leave it open. For this current application, I would suggest you re-open the public hearing before you table it, and then on the applicants, what’s your timeframe? As you know I’m swamped. MR. LAPPER-What could you accommodate? MRS. MOORE-The potential for the second meeting in October, if that works, and then we just have to figure out a date for this particular project for submission of information. th MR. HENKEL-So on the 27 of October. MRS. MOORE-Yes. st MR. HENKEL-Okay. With any kind of submittal by October 1, or? MRS. MOORE-I need to advertise it. MR. LAPPER-How much do you need, Laura? We’ll take as much as you can. MRS. MOORE-I know. th MR. HENKEL-So you think that’s going to be enough time, then, October 27? th MRS. MOORE-I would probably give them potentially to October 8, and if they decide at that point that th they need to table it further, then we’ll consider a tabling motion at the October 27 meeting, but I’ll know th by October 8. MR. LAPPER-I think we can make that and I appreciate that, and we’ll try to make that happen. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And just as a matter, part of your discussion is that you’re re-opening that public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’ll leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett & Pamela West. Applicant proposes to demo existing home and construct a new home of 5,722 sq. ft. (building footprint of 5,030 sq. ft. and covered walkway of 692 sq. ft.) and a patio area of 1,800 sq. ft. The new floor area will be more than 9,199 sq. ft.; a 500 sq. ft. barn is also proposed and maintaining the shed adding to the floor area. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management, driveway area, a covered walkway between the main home and a proposed home on the adjoining parcel. Project also includes a 375 sq. ft. porte cochere and an attached garage. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, permeability, height, additional garage, and floor area. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE), Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Tabled to the October 27, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be th submitted by October 8, 2021. th Duly adopted this 29 day of September, 2021, by the following vote: 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) BRETT & PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 108 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITH 3,741 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND 2,990 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE HOME IS TWO STORY WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A COVERED WALKWAY FROM THE HOME TO THE PROPOSED ADJOINING HOME. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH A RAIN GARDEN, NEW SITE PLANTINGS, NEW SEPTIC, AND NEW LINE FOR DRINKING WATER. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA, AND ACCESS FROM ADJOINING LOT. CROSS REF SP 52-2021; SEP 343-2021; AST 433-2020; DEMO 803-2019; PT 802-2019; AV 52-2009; SP 54-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-4-050 MR. UNDERWOOD-And the second motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett & Pamela West. Applicant proposes construction of a new home with 3,741 sq. ft. floor area and 2,990 sq. ft. footprint. The home is two story with an attached garage. The project includes a covered walkway from the home to the proposed adjoining home. Site work includes stormwater management with a rain garden, new site plantings, new septic, and new line for drinking water. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and access from adjoining lot. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE), Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Tabled to the October 27, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be th submitted by October 8, 2021. th Duly adopted this 29 day of September, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe th MR. HENKEL-And we’re opening the public hearing and keeping it open until October 27, 2021. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. KEIL-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thanks, Laura. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF TH SEPTEMBER 29, 2021, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 29 day of September, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/29/2021) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Acting Chairman 24